So Jumper was pretty forgettable, if not actively disappointing. I’m not sure if Rachel Bilson is hopelessly miscast and a lousy actor, or if the character is just completely under-served by the screenplay. But, really, she’s the least of the film’s problems. (Hayden Christensen isn’t phenomenal either, but he should have a decent enough career ahead of him so long as he avoids ever letting George Lucas write dialogue for him again.)
The real problem is, there’s no reason to care about any one of these characters — and, in fact, plenty of reason for the very opposite. The effects are cool (if maybe not quite as cool as advertised), but the characters are shallow and one-dimensional, and it’s tough to care if they get to continue living their pointless and smug wish-fulfillment lives. Basically? What Tasha Robinson says here. It’s all the more disappointing because the sort of character development that’s sorely lacking in the film could have been so easily introduced. It’s not that the characters start out as self-centered, greedy, and shallow; it’s that they end up exactly the same way. What the film seems to be suggesting is that these are somehow heroic qualities. That while Christensen could be using his power to help people — if not the drowning victims he sees on TV when we first meet him, then at least his fellow jumpers later on — it’s much better if he uses it for a no-strings-attached life of robbing banks, traveling the world, and getting laid. That whole “with great power comes great responsibility” thing? That’s just for losers who can’t do what he does.
It’s weird to see the film acknowledge what’s wrong with its main character, the smug emptiness at his center, and then to spend the rest of its time championing those flaws rather than letting him overcome them.
It also means the film is not a lot of fun.
Have you read the book?
It’s been ages since I did–when it was first issued–but I remember liking it. A comparison would be interesting.
I haven’t read the sequel, which was apparently written post movie to retcon some movie stuff into the source material–reviews have been… um… not encouraging.
I haven’t read the book, but the Onion A.V. Club’s Robinson has, and she does the whole side-by-side comparison thing. Apparently, Gould’s book and the film have almost nothing in common.
Which is good, if only because it means the book probably won’t be ruined for me if I ever get around to reading it.